Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • That makes no sense, for two reasons:


    1. Over 180 highly reputable universities and government labs replicated, as shown in Storms Table 2. They all had zero involvement before 1989, when no one knew about cold fusion. No one anywhere was associated with cold fusion except Paneth and Peters in 1927, and Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. What you are saying is that as soon as someone at Los Alamos, China Lake or BARC replicates, that makes the institution tainted and we can no longer trust them. So, no institution will ever be able to replicate to your satisfaction.


    2. If you insist on "no failures" you will never accept the reality of any physical effect or experiment. Experiments always fail. Even industrial production fails at times. Up until the mid-1950s, with many transistor types, nearly every device in a batch failed. Rockets have been in intense development since 1945, and they often carry payloads worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, yet they still often explode.


    from wikipedia:

    In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[56] The IMRA laboratory stopped cold fusion research in 1998 after spending £12 million.[1] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continued giving talks and publishing papers.[56]

    You can't pick and choose. A quick search will show there have been likely thousands of failed CF/LENR attempts. Also, a high percentage of the positive claims were retracted once experts used their advanced techniques to study the data.

  • Rossi here is commenting on the events following Feb 16 2016 when the Doral plant was shut down and padlocked after its 1 year test.


    In contrast, I am talking about the events of a year earlier, February 2015, near the beginning of the 1-year test. Over the first 2 weeks of Feb of that year, Rossi had brought approximately 50 small E-Cat units online. Those E-Cats were permanently shut down on Feb 19 without Rossi ever complaining that they failed to produce excess heat.

    In the interview I mentioned, Rossi tells that he can now enter the Doral Plant again and analyze the reactors that have been turn off since 2016. If you read what I reported, you can see that Rossi speaks about the small E-Cat units and says that they have stopped working almost immediately but he still doesn't know the reason why:

    "The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. [...]In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge."

    I don't know if Rossi ever complained before about their failure ... but what does it matter? The plant consisted of 4 250kW reactors and 52 20kW reactors, so it was perfectly able to operate (producing 1 MW) even with the small reactors out of order. So what is your point?

  • In that case you have not been paying attention. We have, as the result of the Trial, a clear understanding now of the aspects of the test that did not make sense.


    (1) Rossi was trusted by the profs and viewed as an authority on his device

    (2) He was in charge of critical aspects of the test, like heating up the dummy

    (3) Before the dummy test started to get hot enough to be used as a genuine control he pulled the plug

    In the Lugano report the Professors wrote this:

    "The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration."

    Here is no written that Rossi decided what to do. It has been written that Rossi made some actions under the direct control of the Professors and at least one of that action was requested by them. On what basis do you say that Rossi was deciding when to turn off the dummy?

  • from wikipedia:


    In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.

    Getting information from Wikipedia is like drinking water from a sewer. I recommend you read the actual results from IMRA, rather than taking the word of some anonymous troll at Wikipedia who names himself after a comic book character.


    Read the results, think for yourself, and judge for yourself. See Roulette's paper.


    Also, a high percentage of the positive claims were retracted once experts used their advanced techniques to study the data.

    That is incorrect. I know of only a few papers that were retracted, out of several thousand.


    A word to the wise guy: You can make up bullshit like this and fool ordinary readers. But you cannot fool me, because I am the librarian and I have read many, many papers. Plus I have tons of electronic notes and summaries from Storms and Britz. I can easily find out approximately how many papers were retracted.


    I suppose your goal is to fool other readers, not me. In that case: Carry on!

  • There are emails between R and certain researchers in more than one EU country that clearly demonstrate that at least four folks were (and possibly still are) in on "the gig". All of that gets to stay quiet thx to the settlement.

    This is big bullshit Weaver Style !

    If there were emails docs notes etc they would have been in the trial documents.

    If they are not there is because:

    a) are not relevant

    or

    b) do not exist


    The real thing is that a lot of documents against Cherokee and Darden exist in the net and they illustrate the "Darden way" to what I call crime.

    Darden has been able to avoid and escape the US Justice System....... but nobody can escape forever!

  • from wikipedia:

    ....Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[56]

    Wikipedia is an incredibly biased source to be quoting from.





    Drama on Wikipedia Street


    New Energy Times ^ | Mar 10, 2008 | Steven B. Krivit




    Wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia, "launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger," according to itself. They introduced a radical concept: an opportunity for knowledge about any and all subjects, developed and maintained in a quasi-organized, quasi-anarchistic structure by named or unnamed authors and editors.

    The concept has had its strengths and weaknesses. It takes advantage of the ubiquity and near-universal accessibility of the Internet. The model relies on volunteer participation by editors. It is based on simple principles to align all editors toward a common goal - that is, the creation of verifiable content from reliable sources presented from a neutral point of view through consensus.

    The influence of the Wikipedia project has been multiplied many times over, as the content of many Wikipedia pages has been replicated worldwide like a thought virus; the pages are replicated with no apparent regard for the accuracy or validity of the original Wikipedia source, so if a Wikipedia page is wrong, this error gets propagated widely.

    The Wikipedia "cold fusion" page has been a wondrous and mysterious glimpse into this Web phenomenon. A rather interesting set of coincidences occurred in December. In an utterly bizarre shift, the more dominant editors of the free-for-all online encyclopedia reverted the reference page for "cold fusion" to a version that was more than three years out of date. An “edit war” resulted. As we go to press, the Wikipedia cold fusion page has been locked for two months, "protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."

    Wikipedia pages have become a dominant provider of public information and an influence on public opinion. Wikipedia reference pages are often the first hits that anybody finds when doing Internet searches, so the service and its pages become a significant factor in many arenas of society, industry and government.

    In the last two years, the Wikipedia cold fusion page had evolved slowly, increasing in clarity, precision and inclusion of new scientific references. In the reversion to the 2004 version, the work of many individuals who contributed to the development of a more current page disappeared from public view with the click of the mouse on Dec. 6.

    The revision followed one Wikipedia editor's apparently random decision on Nov. 26 to delete published bibliographic references for the subject.

    The core of the dispute appears to stem from the viewpoint of some editors that cold fusion is merely a footnote in the history of pathological science and nothing more, though they lack evidence to support their view. These editors have had difficulty supporting their position because other more-informed editors have followed news and read the latest published papers on the subject; they present a strong case that the field is a legitimate science. However, logic, thus far, does not appear to have prevailed.

    It was not the first time that someone unilaterally reverted the page, effectively removing current news and developments of the field, turning the clock back, if you will. It seems that these editors preferred a version from Aug. 20, 2004, the day on which a consensus of Wikipedia editors decided that the cold fusion page was worthy of being featured on the front page of the Wikipedia Web site. They refer to this as the "Featured Article" version. Wikipedia editors have, on at least two other occasions, reverted the page to the Featured Article version. These additional reversions occurred on Jan. 6, 2006, and on Sept. 30, 2006. Such incidents have driven away many editors who have knowledge and expertise in cold fusion research. Although the Wikipedia page might have been generally accurate (it omitted the transmutation experiments published by Iwamura in 2002, for example) for 2004, its failure to reflect current developments makes the Wikipedia cold fusion page a source of misinformation, if not disinformation.

    The Wikipedia "cold fusion" page has been interesting to watch, not so much as an authoritative source for news and information on the subject of LENR but to see the interplays between people holding various strong opinions on the subject, as well as to see a historical progression of the subject. The traffic, or the number of edits per year, has also been interesting to watch, most noticeably a huge jump occurred after the U.S. Department of Energy decided to look into cold fusion for the second time.

    Date (Year) ~# of Edits Web Link Remarks

    [table deleted, turns into mishmash on Free Republic]

    Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Wikipedia is the fact that it offers a glimpse into the public debate on the subject. Few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate. At the Wikipedia site, the perspectives and opinions are quite expressive, as seen in the comments on the history pages and the discussion pages. They provide a rich window into the human drama and perception of science.

    The other coincidental event that occurred, just days after Wikipedia permitted the cold fusion page to be reverted on Dec. 6, was the Dec. 13 announcement by Udi Manber, vice president of engineering for Google that it is launching a competitive service to Wikipedia.

    One of the main differences in the Google version of a free online encyclopedia, called "Knol" (based on the word knowledge), is that articles will be written by named experts, and they will be maintained by named experts. With the Google Knol encyclopedia, uninvited anonymous editors will not be able to edit or, in some people's view, deface the works of other editors.

    The question that remains to be answered is, once the former Wikipedia editors who have been intent on minimizing "cold fusion" no longer have access to the pages managed by the current experts in the field, will they make an independent effort to build and maintain their own archaic and skeptical pages?

  • 's

    This Larry Forsley turns up everywhere in LENR land it seems. With Pam Boss-Mossier formerly with SPAWAR, JKW, Global Energy Corp. (Genie Hybrid Reactor), and now NASA GRC. I wonder if this ties in with the NASA rumor that Alan started? So many dots, and no one in the know willing to connect them. I am sure Forsley could...were he so inclined.


    Makes you wonder about what they see regarding LENR? There appears to be this dedicated insider group...like some secret society, that keeps popping up on the LENR radar screen, and they have been at it for years. There must be something they are seeing that keeps them going.

  • No BS Ele - just truth that you will never be able to handle.

    Who knows when the rest of the truth will unfold but my guess is that will eventually happen.

    Planet Rossi was left waiting with baited breath for a year anticipating "the ERV". How soon they don't remember / forget. What is truth Planet Rossi? Truth is that it is a morose reality they wallow in every day. Feeling kind of sorry for those cats.

  • High percentage? That's a new claim. I call bullshit.

    I have read extensively on this subject. The wiki article was about how P&F completely failed despite being gifted 10's of millions of dollars. I stand by my assertion that all LENR/CF claims, if subjected to the very highest, most exacting standards, will fail just as the top ones are doing under IH's scrutiny. People are overlooking the dozens of different failure modes that could be responsible for each of these claims. Also, as the P&F debacle showed, it is very expensive to refute these claims. Why would people continue to spend millions of dollars of scarce research money to continue to refute these claims which always fail when under expert review? Just because people don't waste resources to analyze these claims anymore doesn't make them real. Assuming it does is faulty logic.

  • 1. Over 180 highly reputable universities and government labs replicated, as shown in Storms Table 2.


    This sounds like a Trumpian exaggeration. Table 2 shows no such thing. There are over 180 entries in the table, but many are from the same authors at the same institutes. I didn't take the time to look up the institutes, but just from first (and some second) authors, there appear to be less than half that many *institutes* involved. I suspect further investigation would reveal considerably fewer institutes involved. And also that some are not highly reputable (Energetics e.g., which was neither a govt nor university lab).


    It's not that 90 institutes isn't impressive, but if you feel the need to lie to support your case, one wonders if it's because you don't think the truth is good enough.


    And you would know that 180 reputable institutes is not plausible, because the table was compiled in 2004, and in 2009 you tallied excess heat claims and came up with 153 papers in the refereed literature, which also contained multiple papers from some authors. That would mean many reputable govt or university labs replicated cold fusion and did not publish in a refereed journal, which is not plausible.


    Furthermore, the list reflects claims of excess heat in metal hydrides, not strict "replications" of P&F, which would involve electrolysis of palladium in D2O. This list includes claims with excess heat in Ni with light hydrogen, and using methods other than electrolysis.


    Finally, if true, decade-old claims of replications by 180 reputable labs would weaken the case for cold fusion to the breaking point. If the evidence they claimed were believed by trained scientists, there would be thousands of replications by now.


    Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.


    And for 180 reputable labs investigating a phenomenon, it seems implausible that no significant progress has been made. There is no consistent and quantitative reproducibility, no controlled parameter with which the effect scales in any predictable way, no agreement on a conceivable reaction, and no good evidence for nuclear reaction products. The only thing the community agrees upon is a vague indication of excess heat. This situation is far and away most consistent with pathological science.


    Surely, if this claim of 180 (or 90) reputable university labs having replicated cold fusion held water, there would have been no need for the formation of the MFMP whose first aim is to identify an experiment that can be replicated by university labs.

  • if subjected to the very highest, most exacting standards,

    LENR is the only science subjected to such high and exacting standards. If those standards were applied to High Temperature Superconductors we'd only be 2 degrees above absolute zero. If it were applied to Dolly the sheep, all you guys would be calling for those clone claimants to be in jail. And applying such standards to semiconductors would have pushed us back to the days where we could only fit a hundred onto a square inch. When the top hundred electrochemists replicated the PF Anomalous Heat Event, it became established science but skeptopaths simply don't like it.


  • Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.

    No, the funding dried up and scientists moved on to other projects where they could get paid.


    Quote

    Surely, if this claim of 180 (or 90) reputable university labs having replicated cold fusion held water, there would have been no need for the formation of the MFMP whose first aim is to identify an experiment that can be replicated by university labs.

    MFMP is aiming to identify an experiment that almost anyone can replicate, not just university labs. Because people like you don't think that the top hundred electrochemists in the world are acceptable.

  • In the interview I mentioned, Rossi tells that he can now enter the Doral Plant again and analyze the reactors that have been turn off since 2016. If you read what I reported, you can see that Rossi speaks about the small E-Cat units and says that they have stopped working almost immediately but he still doesn't know the reason why:

    "The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. [...]In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge."

    I don't know if Rossi ever complained before about their failure ... but what does it matter? The plant consisted of 4 250kW reactors and 52 20kW reactors, so it was perfectly able to operate (producing 1 MW) even with the small reactors out of order. So what is your point?


    The point is that Rossi never said that he pulled the small E-Cats offline because they failed to produce excess heat. There is no sign at all that he was able to distinguish between the small E-Cats and the Big Frankies in terms of their ability to produce power. The small units appear to have been pulled out for other reasons (according to the log kept by Fabiani and according to the testimony of Barry West). But when the small units were pulled so were their pumps. And that drastically reduced the overall number of operating pumps in the plant from about 60 down to 24. The ability of these remaining pumps to move the quantity of water associated with 1 MW heat production is questionable.


    Your contention that the Big Frankies were able to handle 1 MW all by themselves is likewise dubious. In its original configuration the whole plant with its 113 reactors (1 in each small E-Cat and about 15 in each Big Frankie) would have only only required COP of about 100 to reach 1 MW production. The magical increase to COP = 200 was necessitated by the removal of all the small E-Cats early on. This is suspicious in itself. Rossi's childish reasoning regarding how this increase in COP came about is even more suspicious.

  • There were plumbing issues everyday when that monstrosity was fired up. Barry told a story of Rossi firing the plumber because he kept having to come back, unable to get a handle on the all leaks.

    One must ponder if the shutdown of the small units early in the process was related?

  • And you would know that 180 reputable institutes is not plausible, because the table was compiled in 2004, and in 2009 you tallied excess heat claims and came up with 153 papers in the refereed literature . . .

    That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.


    Not all of the 180 institutions published papers in the peer-reviewed literature.


    There were 180 institutions in Table 2. I counted them long ago.

  • There were plumbing issues everyday when that monstrosity was fired up. Barry told a story of Rossi firing the plumber because he kept having to come back, unable to get a handle on the all leaks.

    One must ponder if the shutdown of the small units early in the process was related?


    One of the court documents (beginning of 207-55) contains a typewritten log which I think was maintained by Fabiani (although it could be Rossi too). It records twice-daily energy absorption values for the E-Cat plant together with occasional comments on events. On Feb 18 2015 - the third and final day of Penon's first site visit - the comment is "TUTTO IL SISTEMA ON" [ALL SYSTEMS ON! Capitals in the original]. The next morning at 10:30AM, after Penon has left, we see "Perdita idrauliche nella parte singoli moduli" [Hydraulic losses in the individual module parts]. And then that evening at 10:30PM we get "Off 6 gruppi singoli moduli" [Off 6 groups of single modules].


    Here you see recorded the permanent shutdown of the small E-Cats. It happened the day after Penon left the facility. The reason given is water leaks. This could just be a cover, though, There is a possibility that Rossi wanted these units out of the picture for other reasons and chose leaks (which could be purposely created) as the right excuse. One possible reason for wanting the small E-Cats out of the way is that many of their fuel charges had been prepared by IH personnel when he (Rossi) wasn't on site. He might have been nervous that IH had intentionally introduced some control charges.

  • Quote

    Finally, if true, decade-old claims of replications by 180 reputable labs would weaken the case for cold fusion to the breaking point. If the evidence they claimed were believed by trained scientists, there would be thousands of replications by now.


    Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.

    Exactly. That is how the real world works. Nobody give up the potential for endless cheap power if the experiments show serious promise. That's why I keep insisting on seeing the 100W out and no power in and the long run. But I never seem to find it. Strange.

  • Wikipedia is an incredibly biased source to be quoting from.

    Wikipedia is open to collaboration. If you don't agree just participate to the discussion and correct the article providing documents that sustain your thesis.

    Wikipedia has also strict policy on copyright (your article must be original).

    So is the best result of Internet Common and Open collaboration.

  • Wikipedia is open to collaboration. If you don't agree just participate to the discussion and correct the article providing documents that sustain your thesis.

    Wikipedia has also strict policy on copyright (your article must be original).

    So is the best result of Internet Common and Open collaboration.


    ROFL!!

  • That's why I keep insisting on seeing the 100W out and no power in and the long run. But I never seem to find it. Strange.

    Mary there are many evidences...... I understand you don't want to see

    but what you think about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widom-Larsen_theory and their company http://www.lenrnews.eu/lattice…rcraft-and-other-systems/

    As far as I remember they also were in contact with Darden.

  • Quote

    Mary there are many evidences...... I understand you don't want to see

    but what you think about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widom-Larsen_theory and their company http://www.lenrnews.eu/lattice…rcraft-and-other-systems/

    As far as I remember they also were in contact with Darden.


    Widom and Larsen have a theory, ele, not a device. They don't produce any power at all except with their pens and their jaws. And the theory is not very popular with scientists who should know. I am not one of them. I know nothing about it.

  • @ Bob,


    I answer you here because the subject has nothing to do with the pump issue.

    When will supporters ever have actual support from Rossi himself, instead of having to defend him with conjecture?


    Sorry, but I'm not interested in the debate pro/cons Rossi, especially with respect to IH. The recent RvD litigation led to the polarization of the LENR debate around this diatribe, but it looks to me a pantomime, because both parts are supporting, one way or another, the validity of LENR, whereas, IMO, the real debate should be about the reality of CF/LENR as a whole.

  • Sorry, but I'm not interested in the debate pro/cons Rossi, especially with respect to IH. The recent RvD litigation led to the polarization of the LENR debate around this diatribe, but it looks to me a pantomime, because both parts are supporting, one way or another, the validity of LENR, whereas, IMO, the real debate should be about the reality of CF/LENR as a whole.


    Ascoli,


    Good points. However, try as we may to put Rossi behind us, I think he is going to be the center of attention for a long time to come. Not because of Doral, as that was an obvious ruse, but because questions still remain as to his early years with Focardi. Also, the first Hotcat test in Ferrara has so far stood up against the critiques. And one can not help but wonder if IH did get a little something in a few of their attempts. After all, even Dameron told the Boeing guy (Childress) that he saw something interesting.


    Then there are the possible replications of the Hotcat by AP and Songsheng, and both are still actively refining, and reporting. Every time they report, Rossi comes back into focus. And me356's Hotcat type reactor, while a bust, did provide fuel ash samples that may help MFMP unravel a piece of the puzzle. And let us not forget MFMP, which formed to replicate Rossi's Hotcat. As long as they are at it, Rossi is in the picture.


    Got to admit that Rossi has spawned many offspring ...and yet he still has not proven a damn thing! The guy is that good. So yeah, we can talk about whether or not LENR is real, but Rossi is not going anywhere. By the time we are done with him, he will be a legend...if not already. Just the way he wants it. :)